|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| In [[mathematics]], a '''Heyting algebra''', named after [[Arend Heyting]], is a [[Lattice_(order)#Bounded_lattice|bounded lattice]] (with join and meet operations written ∨ and ∧ and with least element 0 and greatest element 1) equipped with a binary operation ''a'' → ''b'' of ''implication'' such that (''a'' → ''b'') ∧ ''a'' ≤ ''b'', and moreover ''a'' → ''b'' is the greatest such in the sense that if ''c'' ∧ ''a'' ≤ ''b'' then ''c'' ≤ ''a'' → ''b''. From a logical standpoint, ''A'' → ''B'' is by this definition the weakest proposition for which [[modus ponens]], the inference rule ''A'' → ''B'', ''A'' ⊢ ''B'', is sound. Equivalently a Heyting algebra is a [[residuated lattice]] whose monoid operation ''a''⋅''b'' is ''a'' ∧ ''b''; yet another definition is as a [[posetal category|posetal]] [[cartesian closed category]] with all finite sums. Like [[Boolean algebra]]s, Heyting algebras form a [[Variety (universal algebra)|variety]] axiomatizable with finitely many equations.
| | Catrina Le is what's written on her birth qualification though she doesn't clearly like being [http://search.un.org/search?ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=UN_Website_en&num=10&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_en&oe=utf8&q=called+prefer&Submit=Go called prefer] this. Her job is probably a cashier but instantly her husband and her will start their own company. To drive is something your she's been doing in numerous drinks .. For years she's been living with Vermont. Go to the female website to find as well as more: http://prometeu.net<br><br> |
|
| |
|
| As lattices, Heyting algebras can be shown to be [[distributive lattice|distributive]]. Every Boolean algebra is a Heyting algebra when ''a'' → ''b'' is defined as usual as ¬''a'' ∨ ''b'', as is every [[Completeness (order theory)|complete]] [[distributive lattice]] satisfying a one-sided [[Distributivity (order theory)#Distributivity laws for complete lattices|infinite distributive law]] when ''a'' → ''b'' is taken to be the [[supremum]] of the set of all ''c'' for which ''a'' ∧ ''c'' ≤ ''b''. The [[open set]]s of a [[topological space]] form such a lattice, and therefore a (complete) Heyting algebra. In the finite case every nonempty distributive lattice, in particular every nonempty finite [[Total_order#Chains|chain]], is automatically complete and completely distributive, and hence a Heyting algebra.
| | Feel free to surf to my site [http://prometeu.net Clash of clans hack android] |
| | |
| It follows from the definition that 1 ≤ 0 → ''a'', corresponding to the intuition that any proposition ''a'' is implied by a contradiction 0. Although the negation operation ¬''a'' is not part of the definition, it is definable as ''a'' → 0. The definition implies that ''a'' ∧ ¬''a'' = 0, making the intuitive content of ¬''a'' the proposition that to assume ''a'' would lead to a contradiction, from which any other proposition would then follow. It can further be shown that ''a'' ≤ ¬¬''a'', although the converse, ¬¬''a'' ≤ ''a'', is not true in general, that is, [[double negation]] does not hold in general in a Heyting algebra.
| |
| | |
| Heyting algebras generalize Boolean algebras in the sense that a Heyting algebra satisfying ''a'' ∨ ¬''a'' = 1 ([[excluded middle]]), equivalently ¬¬''a'' = ''a'' ([[double negation]]), is a Boolean algebra. Those elements of a Heyting algebra of the form ¬''a'' comprise a Boolean lattice, but in general this is not a [[subalgebra]] of H (see [[Heyting_algebra#Regular_and_complemented_elements|below]]).
| |
| | |
| Heyting algebras serve as the algebraic models of propositional [[intuitionistic logic]] in the same way [[Boolean algebra]]s model propositional [[classical logic]]. [[Complete Heyting algebra]]s are a central object of study in [[pointless topology]]. The internal logic of an [[elementary topos]] is based on the Heyting algebra of [[subobject]]s of the [[terminal object]] 1 ordered by inclusion, equivalently the morphisms from 1 to the [[subobject classifier]] Ω.
| |
| | |
| Every Heyting algebra with exactly one [[atom (order theory)|coatom]] is [[subdirectly irreducible]], whence every Heyting algebra can be made an [[subdirect irreducible|SI]] by adjoining a new top. It follows that even among the finite Heyting algebras there exist infinitely many that are subdirectly irreducible, no two of which have the same equational theory. Hence no finite set of finite Heyting algebras can supply all the counterexamples to non-laws of Heyting algebra. This is in sharp contrast to Boolean algebras, whose only SI is the two-element one, which on its own therefore suffices for all counterexamples to non-laws of Boolean algebra, the basis for the simple [[truth table]] decision method. Nevertheless it is decidable whether an equation holds of all Heyting algebras.<ref name="Kripke63">Kripke, S. A.: 1965, ‘Semantical analysis of intuitionistic logic I’. In: J. N. Crossley and M. A. E. Dummett (eds.): Formal Systems and Recursive Functions. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 92–130.</ref>
| |
| | |
| Heyting algebras are less often called '''pseudo-Boolean algebras''', or even '''[[Brouwer lattice]]s''',<ref name="KusraevKutateladze1999">{{cite book|author1=A. G. Kusraev|author2=Samson Semenovich Kutateladze|title=Boolean valued analysis|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=MzVXq3LRHOYC&pg=PA12 |year=1999 |publisher=Springer|isbn=978-0-7923-5921-0|page=12}}</ref> although the latter term may denote the dual definition,<ref>{{springer | title=Brouwer lattice | id= b/b017660 | last= Yankov | first= V.A.}}</ref> or have a slightly more general meaning.<ref name="Blyth2005">{{cite book|author=Thomas Scott Blyth|title=Lattices and ordered algebraic structures|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=WgROkcmTxG4C&pg=PA151 |year=2005 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-1-85233-905-0|page=151}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Formal definition ==
| |
| A Heyting algebra ''H'' is a [[lattice (order)#Lattices_as_posets|bounded lattice]] such that for all ''a'' and ''b'' in ''H'' there is a greatest element ''x'' of ''H'' such that
| |
| | |
| :<math> a \wedge x \le b.</math>
| |
| | |
| This element is the '''relative pseudo-complement''' of ''a'' with respect to ''b'', and is denoted ''a''→''b''. We write 1 and 0 for the largest and the smallest element of ''H'', respectively.
| |
| | |
| In any Heyting algebra, one defines the '''pseudo-complement''' ¬''a'' of any element ''a'' by setting ¬''a'' = (''a''→0). By definition, <math>a\wedge \lnot a = 0</math>, and ¬''a'' is the largest element having this property. However, it is not in general true that <math>a\vee\lnot a=1</math>, thus ¬ is only a pseudo-complement, not a true [[complement (set theory)|complement]], as would be the case in a Boolean algebra.
| |
| | |
| A '''[[complete Heyting algebra]]''' is a Heyting algebra that is a [[complete lattice]].
| |
| | |
| A '''subalgebra''' of a Heyting algebra ''H'' is a subset ''H''<sub>1</sub> of ''H'' containing 0 and 1 and closed under the operations ∧, ∨ and →. It follows that it is also closed under ¬. A subalgebra is made into a Heyting algebra by the induced operations.
| |
| | |
| ==Alternative definitions==
| |
| ===Lattice-theoretic definitions===
| |
| An equivalent definition of Heyting algebras can be given by considering the mappings:
| |
| | |
| :<math>\begin{cases} f_a \colon H \to H \\ f_a(x)=a\wedge x \end{cases}</math>
| |
| | |
| for some fixed ''a'' in ''H''. A bounded lattice ''H'' is a Heyting algebra [[if and only if]] every mapping ''f<sub>a</sub>'' is the lower adjoint of a monotone [[Galois connection]]. In this case the respective upper adjoint ''g<sub>a</sub>'' is given by ''g<sub>a</sub>''(''x'') = ''a''→''x'', where → is defined as above.
| |
| | |
| Yet another definition is as a [[residuated lattice]] whose monoid operation is ∧. The monoid unit must then be the top element 1. Commutativity of this monoid implies that the two residuals coincide as ''a''→''b''.
| |
| | |
| ===Bounded lattice with an implication operation===
| |
| Given a bounded lattice ''A'' with largest and smallest elements 1 and 0, and a binary operation →, these together form a Heyting algebra if and only if the following hold:
| |
| #<math>a\to a = 1</math>
| |
| #<math>a\wedge(a\to b)=a\wedge b</math>
| |
| #<math>b\wedge(a\to b)= b</math>
| |
| #<math>a\to (b\wedge c)= (a\to b)\wedge (a\to c)</math>
| |
| where 4 is the distributive law for →.
| |
| | |
| ===Characterization using the axioms of intuitionistic logic===
| |
| This characterization of Heyting algebras makes the proof of the basic facts concerning the relationship between intuitionist propositional calculus and Heyting algebras immediate. (For these facts, see the sections "[[#Provable identities|Provable identities]]" and "[[#Universal constructions|Universal constructions]]".) One should think of the element 1 as meaning, intuitively, "provably true." Compare with the axioms at [[Intuitionistic logic#Axiomatization]].
| |
| | |
| Given a set ''A'' with three binary operations →, ∧ and ∨, and two distinguished elements 0 and 1, then ''A'' is a Heyting algebra for these operations (and the relation ≤ defined by the condition that <math>a \le b</math> when ''a''→''b'' = 1) if and only if the following conditions hold for any elements ''x'', ''y'' and ''z'' of ''A'':
| |
| | |
| #<math>\mbox{If } x \to y = 1 \mbox{ and } y \to x = 1 \mbox{ then } x = y ,</math>
| |
| #<math>\mbox{If } 1 \to y = 1, \mbox{ then } y = 1 ,</math>
| |
| #<math>x \to (y \to x) = 1 ,</math>
| |
| #<math> (x \to (y \to z)) \to ((x \to y) \to (x \to z)) = 1 ,</math>
| |
| #<math> x \and y \to x = 1 ,</math>
| |
| #<math> x \and y \to y = 1 ,</math>
| |
| #<math> x \to (y \to (x \and y)) = 1 ,</math>
| |
| #<math> x \to x \or y = 1 ,</math>
| |
| #<math> y \to x \or y = 1 ,</math>
| |
| #<math> (x \to z) \to ((y \to z) \to (x \or y \to z)) = 1 ,</math>
| |
| #<math> 0 \to x = 1 .</math>
| |
| Finally, we define ¬''x'' to be ''x''→0.
| |
| | |
| Condition 1 says that equivalent formulas should be identified. Condition 2 says that provably true formulas are closed under [[modus ponens]]. Conditions 3 and 4 are ''then'' conditions. Conditions 5, 6 and 7 are ''and'' conditions. Conditions 8, 9 and 10 are ''or'' conditions. Condition 11 is a ''false'' condition.
| |
| | |
| Of course, if a different set of axioms were chosen for logic, we could modify ours accordingly.
| |
| | |
| == Examples ==
| |
| [[Image:Rieger-Nishimura.svg|thumb|right|280px|The [[free object|free]] Heyting algebra over one generator (aka Rieger–Nishimura lattice)]]
| |
| | |
| * Every [[Boolean algebra (structure)|Boolean algebra]] is a Heyting algebra, with ''p''→''q'' given by ¬''p''∨''q''.
| |
| | |
| * Every [[total order|totally ordered set]] that is a bounded lattice is also a Heyting algebra, where ''p''→''q'' is equal to ''q'' when ''p''>''q'', and 1 otherwise.
| |
| | |
| * The simplest Heyting algebra that is not already a Boolean algebra is the totally ordered set {0, ½, 1} with → defined as above, yielding the operations:
| |
| {|
| |
| |
| |
| <div>
| |
| {| class="wikitable"
| |
| | colspan="4" align="center" | <math>a \land b</math>
| |
| |-
| |
| | width="40" | <div style="float:right">b</div><br/><div style="align:left">a</div>
| |
| | bgcolor="white" width="30" align="center" | 0
| |
| | bgcolor="white" width="30" align="center" | ½
| |
| | bgcolor="white" width="30" align="center" | 1
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | 0
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | ½
| |
| | align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | ½
| |
| | align="center" | ½
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | 1
| |
| | align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | ½
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| |}
| |
| </div>
| |
| | width="30" |
| |
| |
| |
| <div>
| |
| {| class="wikitable"
| |
| | colspan="4" align="center" | <math>a \lor b</math>
| |
| |-
| |
| | width="40" | <div style="float:right">b</div><br/><div style="align:left">a</div>
| |
| | bgcolor="white" width="30" align="center" | 0
| |
| | bgcolor="white" width="30" align="center" | ½
| |
| | bgcolor="white" width="30" align="center" | 1
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | ½
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | ½
| |
| | align="center" | ½
| |
| | align="center" | ½
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | 1
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| |}
| |
| </div>
| |
| | width="30" |
| |
| |
| |
| <div>
| |
| {| class="wikitable"
| |
| | colspan="4" align="center" | ''a''→''b''
| |
| |-
| |
| | width="40" | <div style="float:right">b</div><br/><div style="align:left">a</div>
| |
| | bgcolor="white" width="30" align="center" | 0
| |
| | bgcolor="white" width="30" align="center" | ½
| |
| | bgcolor="white" width="30" align="center" | 1
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | ½
| |
| | align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | 1
| |
| | align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | ½
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| |}
| |
| </div>
| |
| | width="30" |
| |
| |
| |
| <div>
| |
| {| class="wikitable"
| |
| | width="50" align="center" | ''a''
| |
| | width="50" align="center" | ¬''a''
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | 0
| |
| | align="center" | 1
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | ½
| |
| | align="center" | 0
| |
| |-
| |
| | bgcolor="white" align="center" | 1
| |
| | align="center" | 0
| |
| |}
| |
| </div>
| |
| |}
| |
| Notice that {{nowrap|1= ½∨¬½ = ½∨(½ → 0) = ½∨0 = ½}} falsifies the law of excluded middle.
| |
| | |
| * Every [[topology]] provides a complete Heyting algebra in the form of its [[open set]] lattice. In this case, the element ''A''→''B'' is the [[interior (topology)|interior]] of the union of ''A<sup>c</sup>'' and ''B'', where ''A<sup>c</sup>'' denotes the [[Complement (set theory)|complement]] of the [[open set]] ''A''. Not all complete Heyting algebras are of this form. These issues are studied in [[pointless topology]], where complete Heyting algebras are also called '''frames''' or '''locales'''.
| |
| | |
| * Every [[interior algebra]] provides a Heyting algebra in the form of its lattice of open elements. Every Heyting algebra is of this form as a Heyting algebra can be completed to a Boolean algebra by taking its free Boolean extension as a bounded distributive lattice and then treating it as a [[generalized topology]] in this Boolean algebra.
| |
| | |
| * The [[Lindenbaum algebra]] of propositional [[intuitionistic logic]] is a Heyting algebra.
| |
| | |
| * The [[global element]]s of the [[subobject classifier]] Ω of an [[elementary topos]] form a Heyting algebra; it is the Heyting algebra of [[truth value]]s of the intuitionistic higher-order logic induced by the topos.
| |
| | |
| == Properties ==
| |
| ===General properties===
| |
| The ordering <math>\le</math> on a Heyting algebra ''H'' can be recovered from the operation → as follows: for any elements ''a'', ''b'' of ''H'', <math>a \le b</math> if and only if ''a''→''b'' = 1.
| |
| | |
| In contrast to some [[many-valued logic]]s, Heyting algebras share the following property with Boolean algebras: if negation has a [[fixed point (mathematics)|fixed point]] (i.e. ¬''a'' = ''a'' for some ''a''), then the Heyting algebra is the trivial one-element Heyting algebra.
| |
| | |
| ===Provable identities===
| |
| Given a formula <math>F(A_1, A_2,\ldots, A_n)</math> of propositional calculus (using, in addition to the variables, the connectives <math>\land, \lor, \lnot, \to</math>, and the constants 0 and 1), it is a fact, proved early on in any study of Heyting algebras, that the following two conditions are equivalent:
| |
| # The formula ''F'' is provably true in intuitionist propositional calculus.
| |
| # The identity <math>F(a_1, a_2,\ldots, a_n) = 1</math> is true for any Heyting algebra ''H'' and any elements <math>a_1, a_2,\ldots, a_n \in H</math>.
| |
| The metaimplication {{nowrap|1 ⇒ 2}} is extremely useful and is the principal practical method for proving identities in Heyting algebras. In practice, one frequently uses the [[deduction theorem]] in such proofs.
| |
| | |
| Since for any ''a'' and ''b'' in a Heyting algebra ''H'' we have <math>a \le b</math> if and only if ''a''→''b'' = 1, it follows from {{nowrap|1 ⇒ 2}} that whenever a formula ''F''→''G'' is provably true, we have <math>F(a_1, a_2,\ldots, a_n) \le G(a_1, a_2,\ldots, a_n)</math> for any Heyting algebra ''H'', and any elements <math>a_1, a_2,\ldots, a_n \in H</math>. (It follows from the deduction theorem that ''F''→''G'' is provable [from nothing] if and only if ''G'' is provable from ''F'', that is, if ''G'' is a provable consequence of ''F''.) In particular, if ''F'' and ''G'' are provably equivalent, then <math>F(a_1, a_2,\ldots, a_n) = G(a_1, a_2,\ldots, a_n)</math>, since ≤ is an order relation.
| |
| | |
| 1 ⇒ 2 can be proved by examining the logical axioms of the system of proof and verifying that their value is 1 in any Heyting algebra, and then verifying that the application of the rules of inference to expressions with value 1 in a Heyting algebra results in expressions with value 1. For example, let us choose the system of proof having [[modus ponens]] as its sole rule of inference, and whose axioms are the Hilbert-style ones given at [[Intuitionistic logic#Axiomatization]]. Then the facts to be verified follow immediately from the axiom-like definition of Heyting algebras given above.
| |
| | |
| 1 ⇒ 2 also provides a method for proving that certain propositional formulas, though [[tautology (logic)|tautologies]] in classical logic, ''cannot'' be proved in intuitionist propositional logic. In order to prove that some formula <math>F(A_1, A_2,\ldots, A_n)</math> is not provable, it is enough to exhibit a Heyting algebra ''H'' and elements <math>a_1, a_2,\ldots, a_n \in H</math> such that <math>F(a_1, a_2,\ldots, a_n) \ne 1</math>.
| |
| | |
| If one wishes to avoid mention of logic, then in practice it becomes necessary to prove as a lemma a version of the deduction theorem valid for Heyting algebras: for any elements ''a'', ''b'' and ''c'' of a Heyting algebra ''H'', we have <math>(a \land b) \to c = a \to (b \to c)</math>.
| |
| | |
| For more on the metaimplication 2 ⇒ 1, see the section "[[#Universal constructions|Universal constructions]]" below.
| |
| | |
| ===Distributivity===
| |
| Heyting algebras are always [[distributivity (order theory)|distributive]]. Specifically, we always have the identities
| |
| #<math>a \wedge (b \vee c) = (a \wedge b) \vee (a \wedge c)</math>
| |
| #<math>a \vee (b \wedge c) = (a \vee b) \wedge (a \vee c)</math>
| |
| | |
| The distributive law is sometimes stated as an axiom, but in fact it follows from the existence of relative pseudo-complements. The reason is that, being the lower adjoint of a [[Galois connection]], <math>\wedge</math> [[limit-preserving function (order theory)|preserves]] all existing [[suprema]]. Distributivity in turn is just the preservation of binary suprema by <math>\wedge</math>.
| |
| | |
| By a similar argument, the following [[infinite distributive law]] holds in any complete Heyting algebra:
| |
| | |
| :<math>x\wedge\bigvee Y = \bigvee \{x\wedge y \mid y \in Y\}</math>
| |
| | |
| for any element ''x'' in ''H'' and any subset ''Y'' of ''H''. Conversely, any complete lattice satisfying the above infinite distributive law is a complete Heyting algebra, with
| |
| :<math>a\to b=\bigvee\{c\mid a\land c\le b\}</math>
| |
| being its relative pseudo-complement operation.
| |
| | |
| ===Regular and complemented elements===
| |
| An element ''x'' of a Heyting algebra ''H'' is called '''regular''' if either of the following equivalent conditions hold:
| |
| #''x'' = ¬¬''x''.
| |
| #''x'' = ¬''y'' for some ''y'' in ''H''.
| |
| The equivalence of these conditions can be restated simply as the identity ¬¬¬''x'' = ¬''x'', valid for all ''x'' in ''H''.
| |
| | |
| Elements ''x'' and ''y'' of a Heyting algebra ''H'' are called '''complements''' to each other if ''x''∧''y'' = 0 and ''x''∨''y'' = 1. If it exists, any such ''y'' is unique and must in fact be equal to ¬''x''. We call an element ''x'' '''complemented''' if it admits a complement. It is true that ''if'' ''x'' is complemented, then so is ¬''x'', and then ''x'' and ¬''x'' are complements to each other. However, confusingly, even if ''x'' is not complemented, ¬''x'' may nonetheless have a complement (not equal to ''x''). In any Heyting algebra, the elements 0 and 1 are complements to each other. For instance, it is possible that ¬''x'' is 0 for every ''x'' different from 0, and 1 if ''x'' = 0, in which case 0 and 1 are the only regular elements.
| |
| | |
| Any complemented element of a Heyting algebra is regular, though the converse is not true in general. In particular, 0 and 1 are always regular.
| |
| | |
| For any Heyting algebra ''H'', the following conditions are equivalent:
| |
| # ''H'' is a [[Boolean algebra (structure)|Boolean algebra]];
| |
| # every ''x'' in ''H'' is regular;<ref>Rutherford (1965), Th.26.2 p.78.</ref>
| |
| # every ''x'' in ''H'' is complemented.<ref>Rutherford (1965), Th.26.1 p.78.</ref>
| |
| In this case, the element {{nowrap|1=''a''→''b''}} is equal to {{nowrap|1=¬''a'' ∨ ''b''.}}
| |
| | |
| The regular (resp. complemented) elements of any Heyting algebra ''H'' constitute a Boolean algebra ''H''<sub>reg</sub> (resp. ''H''<sub>comp</sub>), in which the operations ∧, ¬ and →, as well as the constants 0 and 1, coincide with those of ''H''. In the case of ''H''<sub>comp</sub>, the operation ∨ is also the same, hence ''H''<sub>comp</sub> is a subalgebra of ''H''. In general however, ''H''<sub>reg</sub> will not be a subalgebra of ''H'', because its join operation ∨<sub>reg</sub> may be differ from ∨. For {{nowrap|1=''x'', ''y'' ∈ ''H''<sub>reg</sub>,}} we have {{nowrap|1=''x'' ∨<sub>reg</sub> ''y'' = ¬(¬''x'' ∧ ¬''y'').}} See below for necessary and sufficient conditions in order for ∨<sub>reg</sub> to coincide with ∨.
| |
| | |
| ===The De Morgan laws in a Heyting algebra===
| |
| One of the two [[De Morgan laws]] is satisfied in every Heyting algebra, namely
| |
| | |
| :<math>\forall x,y \in H: \qquad \lnot(x \vee y)=\lnot x \wedge \lnot y.</math>
| |
| | |
| However, the other De Morgan law does not always hold. We have instead a weak de Morgan law:
| |
| | |
| :<math>\forall x,y \in H: \qquad \lnot(x \wedge y)= \lnot \lnot (\lnot x \vee \lnot y).</math>
| |
| | |
| The following statements are equivalent for all Heyting algebras ''H'':
| |
| #''H'' satisfies both De Morgan laws,
| |
| #<math>\lnot(x \wedge y)=\lnot x \vee \lnot y \mbox{ for all } x, y \in H,</math>
| |
| #<math>\lnot(x \wedge y)=\lnot x \vee \lnot y \mbox{ for all regular } x, y \in H,</math>
| |
| #<math>\lnot\lnot (x \vee y) = \lnot\lnot x \vee \lnot\lnot y \mbox{ for all } x, y \in H,</math>
| |
| #<math>\lnot\lnot (x \vee y) = x \vee y \mbox{ for all regular } x, y \in H,</math>
| |
| #<math>\lnot(\lnot x \wedge \lnot y) = x \vee y \mbox{ for all regular } x, y \in H,</math>
| |
| #<math>\lnot x \vee \lnot\lnot x = 1 \mbox{ for all } x \in H.</math>
| |
| Condition 2 is the other De Morgan law. Condition 6 says that the join operation ∨<sub>reg</sub> on the Boolean algebra ''H''<sub>reg</sub> of regular elements of ''H'' coincides with the operation ∨ of ''H''. Condition 7 states that every regular element is complemented, i.e., ''H''<sub>reg</sub> = ''H''<sub>comp</sub>.
| |
| | |
| We prove the equivalence. Clearly the metaimplications {{nowrap|1 ⇒ 2,}} {{nowrap|2 ⇒ 3}} and {{nowrap|4 ⇒ 5}} are trivial. Furthermore, {{nowrap|3 ⇔ 4}} and {{nowrap|5 ⇔ 6}} result simply from the first De Morgan law and the definition of regular elements. We show that {{nowrap|6 ⇒ 7}} by taking ¬''x'' and ¬¬''x'' in place of ''x'' and ''y'' in 6 and using the identity {{nowrap|''a'' ∧ ¬''a'' {{=}} 0.}} Notice that {{nowrap|2 ⇒ 1}} follows from the first De Morgan law, and {{nowrap|7 ⇒ 6}} results from the fact that the join operation ∨ on the subalgebra ''H''<sub>comp</sub> is just the restriction of ∨ to ''H''<sub>comp</sub>, taking into account the characterizations we have given of conditions 6 and 7. The metaimplication {{nowrap|5 ⇒ 2}} is a trivial consequence of the weak De Morgan law, taking ¬''x'' and ¬''y'' in place of ''x'' and ''y'' in 5.
| |
| | |
| Heyting algebras satisfying the above properties are related to [[Intermediate logic|De Morgan logic]] in the same way Heyting algebras in general are related to intuitionist logic.
| |
| | |
| ==Heyting algebra morphisms==
| |
| ===Definition===
| |
| Given two Heyting algebras ''H''<sub>1</sub> and ''H''<sub>2</sub> and a mapping {{nowrap|1=''f'' : ''H''<sub>1</sub> → ''H''<sub>2</sub>,}} we say that ''ƒ'' is a '''[[morphism]]''' of Heyting algebras if, for any elements ''x'' and ''y'' in ''H''<sub>1</sub>, we have:
| |
| #<math>f(0) = 0,</math>
| |
| #<math>f(1) = 1,</math>
| |
| #<math> f(x \and y) = f(x) \and f(y),</math>
| |
| #<math> f(x \or y) = f(x) \or f(y),</math>
| |
| #<math>f(x \to y) = f(x) \to f(y),</math>
| |
| #<math>f(\lnot x) = \lnot f(x).</math>
| |
| | |
| We put condition 6 in brackets because it follows from the others, as ¬''x'' is just ''x''→''0'', and one may or may not wish to consider ¬ to be a basic operation.
| |
| | |
| It follows from conditions 3 and 5 (or 1 alone, or 2 alone) that ''f'' is an increasing function, that is, that {{nowrap|1=''f''(''x'') ≤ ''f''(''y'')}} whenever {{nowrap|1=''x'' ≤ ''y''}}.
| |
| | |
| Assume ''H''<sub>1</sub> and ''H''<sub>2</sub> are structures with operations →, ∧, ∨ (and possibly ¬) and constants 0 and 1, and ''f'' is a surjective mapping from ''H''<sub>1</sub> to ''H''<sub>2</sub> with properties 1 through 5 (or 1 through 6) above. Then if ''H''<sub>1</sub> is a Heyting algebra, so too is ''H''<sub>2</sub>. This follows from the characterization of Heyting algebras as bounded lattices (thought of as algebraic structures rather than partially ordered sets) with an operation → satisfying certain identities.
| |
| | |
| ===Properties===
| |
| The identity map {{nowrap|1=''f''(''x'') = ''x''}} from any Heyting algebra to itself is a morphism, and the composite {{nowrap|1=''g'' ∘ ''f''}} of any two morphisms ''f'' and ''g'' is a morphism. Hence Heyting algebras form a [[Category (mathematics)|category]].
| |
| | |
| ===Examples===
| |
| Given a Heyting algebra ''H'' and any subalgebra ''H''<sub>1</sub>, the inclusion mapping {{nowrap|1=''i'' : ''H''<sub>1</sub> → ''H''}} is a morphism.
| |
| | |
| For any Heyting algebra ''H'', the map {{nowrap|1=''x'' ↦ ¬¬''x''}} defines a morphism from ''H'' onto the Boolean algebra of its regular elements ''H''<sub>reg</sub>. This is ''not'' in general a morphism from ''H'' to itself, since the join operation of ''H''<sub>reg</sub> may be different from that of ''H''.
| |
| | |
| ==Quotients==
| |
| Let ''H'' be a Heyting algebra, and let {{nowrap|1=''F'' ⊆ ''H''.}} We call ''F'' a '''filter''' on ''H'' if it satisfies the following properties:
| |
| #<math>1 \in F,</math>
| |
| #<math> \mbox{If } x,y \in F \mbox{ then } x \and y \in F,</math>
| |
| #<math> \mbox{If } x \in F, \ y \in H, \ \mbox{and } x \le y \mbox{ then } y \in F.</math>
| |
| | |
| The intersection of any set of filters on ''H'' is again a filter. Therefore, given any subset ''S'' of ''H'' there is a smallest filter containing ''S''. We call it the filter '''generated''' by ''S''. If ''S'' is empty, {{nowrap|1=''F'' = {1}.}} Otherwise, ''F'' is equal to the set of ''x'' in ''H'' such that there exist {{nowrap|1=''y''<sub>1</sub>, ''y''<sub>2</sub>, …, ''y''<sub>''n''</sub> ∈ ''S''}} with {{nowrap|1=''y''<sub>1</sub> ∧ ''y''<sub>2</sub> ∧ … ∧ ''y''<sub>''n''</sub> ≤ ''x''.}}
| |
| | |
| If ''H'' is a Heyting algebra and ''F'' is a filter on ''H'', we define a relation ∼ on ''H'' as follows: we write {{nowrap|1=''x'' ∼ ''y''}} whenever {{nowrap|1=''x'' → ''y''}} and {{nowrap|1=''y'' → ''x''}} both belong to ''F''. Then ∼ is an [[equivalence relation]]; we write {{nowrap|1=''H''/''F''}} for the [[quotient set]]. There is a unique Heyting algebra structure on {{nowrap|1=''H''/''F''}} such that the canonical surjection {{nowrap|1=''p''<sub>''F''</sub> : ''H'' → ''H''/''F''}} becomes a Heyting algebra morphism. We call the Heyting algebra {{nowrap|1=''H''/''F''}} the '''quotient''' of ''H'' by ''F''.
| |
| | |
| Let ''S'' be a subset of a Heyting algebra ''H'' and let ''F'' be the filter generated by ''S''. Then ''H''/''F'' satisfies the following universal property:
| |
| *Given any morphism of Heyting algebras {{nowrap|1=''f'' : ''H'' → ''H′''}} satisfying {{nowrap|1=''f''(''y'') = 1}} for every {{nowrap|1=''y'' ∈ ''S'',}} ''f'' factors uniquely through the canonical surjection {{nowrap|1=''p''<sub>''F''</sub> : ''H'' → ''H''/''F''.}} That is, there is a unique morphism {{nowrap|1=''f′'' : ''H''/''F'' → ''H′''}} satisfying {{nowrap|1=''f′p''<sub>''F''</sub> = ''f''.}} The morphism ''f′'' is said to be ''induced'' by ''f''.
| |
| | |
| Let {{nowrap|1=''f'' : ''H''<sub>1</sub> → ''H''<sub>2</sub>}} be a morphism of Heyting algebras. The '''kernel''' of ''f'', written ker ''f'', is the set {{nowrap|1=''f''<sup>−1</sup>[{1}].}} It is a filter on ''H''<sub>1</sub>. (Care should be taken because this definition, if applied to a morphism of Boolean algebras, is dual to what would be called the kernel of the morphism viewed as a morphism of rings.) By the foregoing, ''f'' induces a morphism {{nowrap|1=''f′'' : ''H''<sub>1</sub>/(ker ''f'') → ''H''<sub>2</sub>.}} It is an isomorphism of {{nowrap|1=''H''<sub>1</sub>/(ker ''f'')}} onto the subalgebra ''f''[''H''<sub>1</sub>] of ''H''<sub>2</sub>.
| |
| | |
| ==Universal constructions==
| |
| ===Heyting algebra of propositional formulas in ''n'' variables up to intuitionist equivalence===
| |
| The metaimplication {{nowrap|2 ⇒ 1}} in the section "[[#Provable identities|Provable identities]]" is proved by showing that the result of the following construction is itself a Heyting algebra:
| |
| #Consider the set ''L'' of propositional formulas in the variables ''A''<sub>1</sub>, ''A''<sub>2</sub>,..., ''A''<sub>''n''</sub>.
| |
| # Endow ''L'' with a preorder ≼ by defining ''F''≼''G'' if ''G'' is an (intuitionist) [[logical consequence]] of ''F'', that is, if ''G'' is provable from ''F''. It is immediate that ≼ is a preorder.
| |
| # Consider the equivalence relation ''F''∼''G'' induced by the preorder F≼G. (It is defined by ''F''∼''G'' if and only if ''F''≼''G'' and ''G''≼''F''. In fact, ∼ is the relation of (intuitionist) logical equivalence.)
| |
| # Let ''H''<sub>0</sub> be the quotient set ''L''/∼. This will be the desired Heyting algebra.
| |
| # We write [''F''] for the equivalence class of a formula ''F''. Operations →, ∧, ∨ and ¬ are defined in an obvious way on ''L''. Verify that given formulas ''F'' and ''G'', the equivalence classes [''F''→''G''], [''F''∧''G''], [''F''∨''G''] and [¬''F''] depend only on [''F''] and [''G'']. This defines operations →, ∧, ∨ and ¬ on the quotient set ''H''<sub>0</sub>=''L''/∼. Further define 1 to be the class of provably true statements, and set 0=[⊥].
| |
| # Verify that ''H''<sub>0</sub>, together with these operations, is a Heyting algebra. We do this using the axiom-like definition of Heyting algebras. ''H''<sub>0</sub> satisfies conditions THEN-1 through FALSE because all formulas of the given forms are axioms of intuitionist logic. MODUS-PONENS follows from the fact that if a formula ⊤→''F'' is provably true, where ⊤ is provably true, then ''F'' is provably true (by application of the rule of inference modus ponens). Finally, EQUIV results from the fact that if ''F''→''G'' and ''G''→''F'' are both provably true, then ''F'' and ''G'' are provable from each other (by application of the rule of inference modus ponens), hence [''F'']=[''G''].
| |
| | |
| As always under the axiom-like definition of Heyting algebras, we define ≤ on ''H''<sub>0</sub> by the condition that ''x''≤''y'' if and only if ''x''→''y''=1. Since, by the [[deduction theorem]], a formula ''F''→''G'' is provably true if and only if ''G'' is provable from ''F'', it follows that [''F'']≤[''G''] if and only if F≼G. In other words, ≤ is the order relation on ''L''/∼ induced by the preorder ≼ on ''L''.
| |
| | |
| ===Free Heyting algebra on an arbitrary set of generators===
| |
| In fact, the preceding construction can be carried out for any set of variables {''A''<sub>''i''</sub> : ''i''∈''I''} (possibly infinite). One obtains in this way the ''free'' Heyting algebra on the variables {''A''<sub>''i''</sub>}, which we will again denote by ''H''<sub>0</sub>. It is free in the sense that given any Heyting algebra ''H'' given together with a family of its elements 〈''a''<sub>''i''</sub>: ''i''∈''I'' 〉, there is a unique morphism ''f'':''H''<sub>0</sub>→''H'' satisfying ''f''([''A''<sub>''i''</sub>])=''a''<sub>''i''</sub>. The uniqueness of ''f'' is not difficult to see, and its existence results essentially from the metaimplication {{nowrap|1 ⇒ 2}} of the section "[[#Provable identities|Provable identities]]" above, in the form of its corollary that whenever ''F'' and ''G'' are provably equivalent formulas, ''F''(〈''a''<sub>''i''</sub>〉)=''G''(〈''a''<sub>''i''</sub>〉) for any family of elements 〈''a''<sub>''i''</sub>〉in ''H''.
| |
| | |
| ===Heyting algebra of formulas equivalent with respect to a theory ''T''===
| |
| Given a set of formulas ''T'' in the variables {''A''<sub>''i''</sub>}, viewed as axioms, the same construction could have been carried out with respect to a relation ''F''≼''G'' defined on ''L'' to mean that ''G'' is a provable consequence of ''F'' and the set of axioms ''T''. Let us denote by ''H''<sub>''T''</sub> the Heyting algebra so obtained. Then ''H''<sub>''T''</sub> satisfies the same universal property as ''H''<sub>0</sub> above, but with respect to Heyting algebras ''H'' and families of elements 〈''a''<sub>''i''</sub>〉 satisfying the property that ''J''(〈''a''<sub>''i''</sub>〉)=1 for any axiom ''J''(〈''A''<sub>''i''</sub>〉) in ''T''. (Let us note that ''H''<sub>''T''</sub>, taken with the family of its elements 〈[''A''<sub>''i''</sub>]〉, itself satisfies this property.) The existence and uniqueness of the morphism is proved the same way as for ''H''<sub>0</sub>, except that one must modify the metaimplication {{nowrap|1 ⇒ 2}} in "[[#Provable identities|Provable identities]]" so that 1 reads "provably true ''from T''," and 2 reads "any elements ''a''<sub>1</sub>, ''a''<sub>2</sub>,..., ''a''<sub>''n''</sub> in ''H'' ''satisfying the formulas of T''."
| |
| | |
| The Heyting algebra ''H''<sub>''T''</sub> that we have just defined can be viewed as a quotient of the free Heyting algebra ''H''<sub>0</sub> on the same set of variables, by applying the universal property of ''H''<sub>0</sub> with respect to ''H''<sub>''T''</sub>, and the family of its elements 〈[''A''<sub>''i''</sub>]〉.
| |
| | |
| Every Heyting algebra is isomorphic to one of the form ''H''<sub>''T''</sub>. To see this, let ''H'' be any Heyting algebra, and let 〈''a''<sub>''i''</sub>: ''i''∈I〉 be a family of elements generating ''H'' (for example, any surjective family). Now consider the set ''T'' of formulas ''J''(〈''A''<sub>''i''</sub>〉) in the variables 〈''A''<sub>''i''</sub>: ''i''∈I〉 such that ''J''(〈''a''<sub>''i''</sub>〉)=1. Then we obtain a morphism ''f'':''H''<sub>''T''</sub>→''H'' by the universal property of ''H''<sub>''T''</sub>, which is clearly surjective. It is not difficult to show that ''f'' is injective.
| |
| | |
| ===Comparison to Lindenbaum algebras===
| |
| The constructions we have just given play an entirely analogous role with respect to Heyting algebras to that of [[Lindenbaum algebra]]s with respect to [[Boolean algebra (structure)|Boolean algebras]]. In fact, The Lindenbaum algebra ''B''<sub>''T''</sub> in the variables {''A''<sub>''i''</sub>} with respect to the axioms ''T'' is just our ''H''<sub>''T''∪''T''<sub>1</sub></sub>, where ''T''<sub>1</sub> is the set of all formulas of the form ¬¬''F''→''F'', since the additional axioms of ''T''<sub>1</sub> are the only ones that need to be added in order to make all classical tautologies provable.
| |
| | |
| ==Heyting algebras as applied to intuitionistic logic==
| |
| If one interprets the axioms of the intuitionistic propositional logic as terms of a Heyting algebra, then they will evaluate to the largest element, 1, in ''any'' Heyting algebra under any assignment of values to the formula's variables. For instance, (''P''∧''Q'')→''P'' is, by definition of the pseudo-complement, the largest element ''x'' such that <math>P \land Q \land x \le P</math>. This inequation is satisfied for any ''x'', so the largest such ''x'' is 1.
| |
| | |
| Furthermore the rule of [[modus ponens]] allows us to derive the formula ''Q'' from the formulas ''P'' and ''P''→''Q''. But in any Heyting algebra, if ''P'' has the value 1, and ''P''→''Q'' has the value 1, then it means that <math>P \land 1 \le Q</math>, and so <math>1 \land 1 \le Q</math>; it can only be that ''Q'' has the value 1.
| |
| | |
| This means that if a formula is deducible from the laws of intuitionistic logic, being derived from its axioms by way of the rule of modus ponens, then it will always have the value 1 in all Heyting algebras under any assignment of values to the formula's variables. However one can construct a Heyting algebra in which the value of Peirce's law is not always 1. Consider the 3-element algebra {0,½,1} as given above. If we assign ½ to ''P'' and 0 to ''Q'', then the value of Peirce's law ((''P''→''Q'')→''P'')→''P'' is ½. It follows that Peirce's law cannot be intuitionistically derived. See [[Curry–Howard isomorphism]] for the general context of what this implies in [[type theory]].
| |
| | |
| The converse can be proven as well: if a formula always has the value 1, then it is deducible from the laws of intuitionistic logic, so the ''intuitionistically valid'' formulas are exactly those that always have a value of 1. This is similar to the notion that ''classically valid'' formulas are those formulas that have a value of 1 in the [[two-element Boolean algebra]] under any possible assignment of true and false to the formula's variables — that is, they are formulas which are tautologies in the usual truth-table sense. A Heyting algebra, from the logical standpoint, is then a generalization of the usual system of truth values, and its largest element 1 is analogous to 'true'. The usual two-valued logic system is a special case of a Heyting algebra, and the smallest non-trivial one, in which the only elements of the algebra are 1 (true) and 0 (false).
| |
| | |
| ==Decision problems==
| |
| The problem of whether a given equation holds in every Heyting algebra was shown to be decidable by S. Kripke in 1965.<ref name="Kripke63" /> The precise [[computational complexity]] of the problem was established by R. Statman in 1979, who showed it was [[PSPACE-complete]]<ref>R. Statman. Intuitionistic propositional logic is polynomial-space complete. Theoretical Comput. Sci., 9:67{72, 1979.</ref> and hence at least as hard as deciding equations of Boolean algebra (shown NP-complete in 1971 by S. Cook)<ref name="Cook71">{{Cite news|last = Cook | first = S.A. | authorlink = Stephen A. Cook | title = The complexity of theorem proving procedures
| |
| | booktitle = Proceedings, Third Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, ACM, New York | year = 1971 | pages = 151–158 | doi = 10.1145/800157.805047}}</ref> and conjectured to be considerably harder. The elementary or first-order theory of Heyting algebras is undecidable.<ref>[[Andrzej Grzegorczyk]] (1951) "Undecidability of some topological theories," ''Fundamenta Mathematicae 38'': 137-52.</ref> It remains open whether the [[universal Horn theory]] of Heyting algebras, or [[word problem (mathematics)|word problem]], is decidable.<ref>Peter T. Johnstone, ''Stone Spaces'', (1982) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN 0-521-23893-5. ''(See paragraph 4.11)''</ref> Apropos of the word problem it is known that Heyting algebras are not locally finite (no Heyting algebra generated by a finite nonempty set is finite), in contrast to Boolean algebras which are locally finite and whose word problem is decidable. It is unknown whether free complete Heyting algebras exist except in the case of a single generator where the free Heyting algebra on one generator is trivially completable by adjoining a new top.
| |
| | |
| ==Notes==
| |
| {{Reflist}}
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| * [[Alexandrov topology]]
| |
| * [[Intermediate logic|Superintuitionistic (aka intermediate) logic]]s
| |
| * [[List of Boolean algebra topics]]
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| * {{cite book | first = Daniel Edwin | last = Rutherford | year = 1965 | title = Introduction to Lattice Theory | publisher = Oliver and Boyd }}
| |
| * F. Borceux, ''Handbook of Categorical Algebra 3'', In ''Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications'', Vol. 53, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
| |
| * G. Gierz, K.H. Hoffmann, K. Keimel, J. D. Lawson, M. Mislove and D. S. Scott, ''Continuous Lattices and Domains'', In ''Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications'', Vol. 93, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
| |
| * S. Ghilardi. ''Free Heyting algebras as bi-Heyting algebras'', Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada XVI., 6:240–244, 1992.
| |
| | |
| ==External links==
| |
| *[[PlanetMath:8734|Heyting algebra]] ([[GFDL]]ed)
| |
| | |
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Heyting Algebra}}
| |
| [[Category:Lattice theory]]
| |
| [[Category:Constructivism (mathematics)]]
| |